Friday, March 20, 2015

Friday, March 20, 2015

The Council of University of California Faculty Associations has drafted a letter/petition to President Napolitano in response to proposals to reduce the health care options available to UC Employees. I am posting CUCFA's letter and petition in the hope of widening its circulation among faculty members. Staff unions and UC-AFT may be proceeding with their own responses. If any faculty members wish to sign the petition you can find it at:

Posted by
Michael Meranze

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Yesterday, a meeting of the UC Irvine student government Legislative Council was cancelled due to what campus police determined was a "viable threat of violence associated with the recent controversy over the display of national flags in the lobby of student government offices." Chancellor Gillman issued an accompanying statement decrying the threat of violence and declaring "Regardless of your opinion on the display of the American flag, we must be united in protecting the people who make this university a premier institution of higher learning." This cancellation and threat of violence follows several days in which the student officers who had supported the removal of flags from a portion of the student government building had been receiving various forms of abuse, threats, and condemnation.Although the Chancellor is to be commended for yesterday's statement decrying violence and threats against the student representatives, noticeably missing was any consideration or recognition of the role that his prior statements may have had in legitimating the demonization of the students. You can find his earlier statement here. Several things stand out in the statement:First is his claim that "it was outrageous and indefensible that they would question the appropriateness of displaying the American flag on this great campus." Chancellor Gillman is a constitutional scholar. Is he really saying that "questioning" the "appropriateness" of flying the flag on a college campus is "indefensible"? Are we really to understand that at Irvine a discussion or debate about the meanings of national symbols (even our own) is now off the table? The second thing is his pointed thanks "to a member of our outstanding ROTC program, who volunteered to stand guard over the disputed flag while this issue was being resolved." Suggesting that there was a need to "stand guard over the disputed flag" implies that the flag itself was under some sort of threat. But what exactly was that threat? Being moved to a different location? Being folded up and given to the ASUCI President to keep as was done on a previous occasion? These are threats? Implying that the vote implied a physical threat to the flag casts the student representatives as potential threats (leaving aside the fact that even Flag Burning has been declared protected speech by the Supreme Court). Now Chancellor Gillman insisted in his statement that if the students had acted in a private capacity and expressing personal views then there would be no reason to pay attention. But frankly this seems like a fig leaf. After all, the Chancellor issued his statement after the resolution had been vetoed by the Executive Council of the student government so there was no need for his condemnation. Of course, I understand that some had spread a story about the resolution to parts of the media and that the Chancellor may have been worried about fundraising and political fallout. But it is precisely when the principle of free debate is challenged that it is most incumbent on campus leaders to stand clearly in defense of it. On March 8th the Chancellor did not do so.There is an irony in this situation. In the fall, UC was treated to statements issued by Chancellors on the necessity of civility in debate. At the time, I discussed the dangers of coercion in this insistence on administratively demanded civility. But here, if there is any incivility it is in the language of the Chancellor and the personal attacks on UCI Facebook and elsewhere against the student sponsors. Anyone reading the actual resolution--whatever they think of it in the end--could hardly consider it uncivil. There have been suggestions that moments like this suggest that University administration's should more forcefully distance themselves from student governments. But that seems, unnecessary, unwise and unlikely to make a difference. Anyone who confuses student governments with campus administrations or faculties is unlikely to be persuaded by some formal declaration. Doing so would simply reduce a sense of shared enterprise on campuses. And finally, the most appropriate stance for an administration in a case like this would have been a simple statement that it was a matter of the student government, that the administration was confident that its students would work that matter out, and that the appropriate thing would be for everyone else to allow the debate to take its course and ask questions if they wished. Unfortunately that is not what was done.Here are some links for those of you who are interested:The Actual Resolution on the Flag Location. The most detailed reporting that I have found on the background to the ResolutionThe Chancellor's Statement of March 8Some information on Legislative OutrageA Petition in Support of the Students who proposed the Resolution.

Posted by
Michael Meranze

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Understandably, most public attention on California higher ed has been focused on the meetings between President Napolitano and Governor Brown. But in the last few weeks the Legislature and the Legislative Analyst's office have both attempted to intervene and shape the debate over UC funding. To some extent these interventions may simply indicate the Legislature's desire to become part of a process they seem excluded from at present. But they do suggest both a wider political context for UC and that UC faces a significant debate over the nature of the research university and how the state will conceive of its relationship to the research moving forward. This debate is not, to be sure, limited to California. As events in Oregon, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina make clear, university systems are embroiled in both internal and external conflicts. Although the fights are most immediately about money--often still in the mode of over-sized and politicized public funding cuts--they suggest issues deeper than short-term finances. As Chris and I have noted repeatedly, budgets are about values and what is at stake as 2015 are the values of the research university. In this post I want to look at the staff analysis prepared for the February 18th, Assembly Budget Committee meeting on UC. This Committee hearing was not the first effort by the Legislature to intervene in the UC debate. But it lays out the terrain that we face and raises challenges to the ways that UC operates.

The staff analysis seems committed to challenging UC's claim that it has suffered from under-funding. It attempts to do this by demonstrating that UC spending has increased significantly in both the total and core budgets since 2007. They do this both in absolute dollars and in comparison to other state agencies. (4-5) At the same time, they try to minimize the increased costs UC faces. For example, they emphasize the small growth in undergraduate resident student numbers rather than addressing the growth in total undergrad enrollments, which makes it appear that UC has more money to spend per student than it would if the total was taken into account.

In particular, assembly staff press on the size of administration. They highlight the fact that, as is the case across the country, the number of administrative personnel is rising at a far faster pace than the number of tenure-track faculty (8). Unlike much public discussion, they emphasize the expansion of the Management and Senior Professional Group (MSP). The Committee staff are right to note how difficult it is to account for the administrative growth--especially in the MSP group where the greatest growth seems to have occurred. I say "seems" because it is extremely difficult if not impossible to figure out exactly who is in the MSP, what job categories are included, where the individuals are located, and so on by using UCOP's publicly available data. UC will always respond to questions about administrative salaries and costs by pointing to the Senior Management Group because it is small. But the MSP group is large and growing so the assembly is right to push on that. The opacity of this category is a serious problem for the University.

Exacerbating this expansion in administration is the rise in the number of high-salaried UC employees. Whereas the budget committee analysts recognize that many of these are connected to medical centers or are athletic coaches (and therefore may not be state funded) it is clear that not all are. Indeed the number of UC employees earning over $200,000 has nearly doubled since 2007 (8). Two issues, besides the obvious public image problem, make this development particularly fraught. First, while the number of high salaried individuals has grown, UC has turned increasingly to the use of Lecturers for undergraduate teaching. Since 2007, lecturers have increased by nearly 20% while ladder rank faculty has increased about 3% and the number of librarians has actually shrunk. (The number of SMG and MSP has grown in the same period by about 32%). UC claims that it is essential that students be taught by scholars actively involved in research. But UC's increased reliance on Lecturers undermines this claim. (Many lecturers, of course, are engaged in research, but UC does not hire them to be so engaged.) The University can't make a case that UC research is essential to UC instruction when it steadily grows the proportion of non-research instructors.

Beyond the immediate costs involved here there is an additional long-range issue: the burden placed on the pension system by high salaried individuals. This leads straight into one of the most contentious issues raised by the budget committee analysis. It notes that whereas the State caps its pensionable salary at the social security limit of $118,500, UC follows a federal tax code limit of $265,000. While the legislature does not demand that UC change its policy, it certainly implies that it does not see the justification for this choice.

Interestingly, the Budget committee staff challenge the University's assumption that it must always respond to salary markets. At several places they raise the question: why should UC be competing with private universities? They are most explicit in terms of the administration. As they point out, administrative salaries are now defined not only against other public universities but against the salaries of executives outside of the higher education world. The justification for this is unclear. But they are also skeptical about UC including private universities in the compensation comparisons for faculty. Implied in their questioning is the idea that short of a mass exodus of UC faculty, the state may not want to remain bound to the ranking and reputation system of higher education. It is not clear that they will push on this issue but it is possible.

Although the report never makes it explicit, one red thread concerns the relationship between research and teaching load at UC. The report shows skepticism about the relationship between faculty research and teaching and suggests that the relative importance of the two needs to be rethought. As committee staff put it in two questions (both at 13): "Does UC believe faculty are teaching enough? How does UC determine an appropriate
faculty load?" and "Is it appropriate to include research activity within the instruction category? Should
undergraduate students' tuition be used to support research if it does not benefit them?" Put bluntly, the Committee staff seems to be asking why UC professors should be paid more to teach fewer courses than our CSU colleagues are expected to teach. I don't think that the assembly necessarily wants to downgrade the research university. Speaker Atkins, for example, has shown a greater willingness to expand funding for the University than has the Governor. But the analysis clearly questions the present balance between teaching and research. I suspect that this report is simply the opening gambit in a long struggle over the question of research and the administrative and financial burdens that come alongside of it. Given the political pressures to improve completion rates and reduce the time to degrees, the status quo is not going to survive indefinitely. If UC does not rethink its administrative structure and if we do not more consistently prove that research actually enriches the learning of undergraduates we will be ever more vulnerable to the sort of mechanistic solutions favored by the Governor--shorter degrees, more online, greater uniformity in course offerings. No one should want that. We are all going to have to revitalize the research university as a learning institution if we want to continue to secure public support.